Commercial and non-commercial movements of pets into Great Britain Consultation document
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Commercial and non-commercial movements of pets into Great Britain Consultation document August 2021
© Crown copyright 2020 This information is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications If you have any enquiries regarding this publication email: AnimalWelfare.Consultations@defra.gov.uk
Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 How and why we’re consulting............................................................................................. 6 Confidentiality and data protection ....................................................................................... 7 Background.......................................................................................................................... 8 Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 11 Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 29 Cats ................................................................................................................................... 35 Ferrets ............................................................................................................................... 36
Introduction
We are seeking your views on the government’s proposed changes to the rules governing
the commercial and non-commercial movement of pets (dogs, cats, and ferrets) into Great
Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). This does not include Northern Ireland. This is a joint
consultation being issued by Defra on behalf of the UK Government, the Welsh Government,
and the Scottish Government.
Now that we have left the European Union (EU), the government has the opportunity to
manage our own pet travel (non-commercial) and commercial import requirements.
In June 2021, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) bill was introduced to Parliament. The Bill
aims to deliver the UK Government’s manifesto commitment to crack down on the issue of
illegal puppy smuggling.
The Bill includes a regulation making power to introduce restrictions on commercial and non-
commercial pet movements into Great Britain on welfare grounds and to make changes to
the supporting enforcement regime.
We are consulting on these proposed new restrictions, which have been developed utilising
recommendations1 and evidence2 from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA)
committee and third sector organisations, as well as public petitions34 and campaigns for
change. The key proposed measures include:
• increasing the minimum age at which dogs can be brought into Great Britain
(commercial and non-commercial dog movements)
• prohibiting the commercial and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of dogs
with cropped ears and docked tails
• prohibiting the commercial and non-commercial movement of heavily pregnant dams
(female dog) into Great Britain
We believe that these proposed measures will have a significant impact in helping us to
address the high and increasing volume of movements of dogs with low welfare standards
into Great Britain, under both the commercial and non-commercial rules. These measures
1
EFRA 2019 recommendations letter - Correspondence to Secretary of State from the Chair October 2019
about Puppy Smuggling (PDF)
2
EFRA 2020 written and oral evidence about pet smuggling
3
Petition to parliament about stopping the rising number of ear-cropped dogs in the UK
4
Petition to Parliament about banning the exploitative import of young puppies for sale in the UKwill not apply to domestic movements, including those between Northern Ireland and Great
Britain.
5 of 37How and why we’re consulting
As part of changing the current regulatory regime for the movement of pet animals into Great
Britain, it is right that we should gather the views of all interested parties.
This consultation sets out our core proposal and asks for views on whether it is the right
approach and for suggestions of alternative solutions. The consultation also asks for views
on the practicalities of how new restrictions might apply.
In line with wider Government initiatives on Better Regulation5 and proportionality, we are
also seeking views on whether the proposed measures are proportionate, what the impacts
may be on UK pet owners and whether there will be any unintended consequences.
We plan to publish a report on GOV.UK summarising the feedback, we have received once
the consultation closes. The findings of the consultation will help us determine which new
measures to take forward.
How to respond
Submit your consultation response using the online survey provided on Citizen Space
(Citizen Space is an online consultation tool).
Alternatively, you can email your response to AnimalWelfare.Consultations@defra.gov.uk or
post it to:
Commercial and non-commercial movement of pets
Consultation Coordinator
Kings Pool
Foss and Mallard House
1 to 2 Peasholme Green
York
YO1 7PX
Responses should be submitted by 16 October 2021. The consultation will run for 8 weeks.
5
Read the gov.uk information on reforming the framework for better regulation
6 of 37Confidentiality and data protection
Information in responses to this consultation may be subject to release to the public or other
parties in line with access to information law (these are primarily the Environmental
Information Regulations (EIRs) 2004, the Freedom of Information act (FOI) 2000 and the
Data Protection act (DPA) 2018.
Defra may publish the content of your response to this consultation to make it available to the
public without your personal name and private contact details (for example name and email
address).
If you would like your response kept confidential, clearly state what information you would like
to be kept confidential and why. This is to help us balance these obligations for disclosure
against any obligation of confidentiality.
If we receive a request for the information that you have provided in your response to this call
for evidence. We will take full account of your reasons for requesting confidentiality of your
response, but we cannot guarantee that confidentiality can be maintained in all
circumstances.
7 of 37Background
Existing requirements for the non-commercial and commercial movement
of pets
Dogs, cats, and ferrets can currently enter Great Britain in one of two ways under the non-
commercial pet travel rules or via the commercial importation regime. Each regime has
different requirements.
A non-commercial movement is defined as ‘any movement which does not have as its aim
either the sale or the transfer of ownership of a pet animal’6. This is subject to a maximum
number of pets which may accompany their owner during a single non-commercial
movement. The current maximum number of pets is five per person.
However, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) bill, currently before Parliament, proposes to
reduce this limit to 5 per motor vehicle, or 3 per person, if travelling any other way other than
motor vehicle (such as by air or as a foot passenger).
Movements of dogs, cats, and ferrets, which do not fall within the definition of ‘non-
commercial movement’ are subject to the commercial import regime. This includes all rescue
charities that import dogs for rehoming in Great Britain7.
The commercial regime also includes those traveling with more than the maximum number of
pets permitted under the non-commercial rules, unless they fall within an exception8.
Current issues and policy position
On 1 January 2012, the UK harmonised its pet movement rules with the rest of the EU. This
resulted in a change of entry rules for dogs, cats and ferrets entering the UK from the EU and
certain listed non-EU countries under both the commercial and non-commercial movement
rules. These changes made travelling with pets cheaper and easier for owners and pet
sellers.
6
retained UK law - EUR 576/2013 (as amended) - Article 3 (a)
7
Rescue charities – dogs, cats or ferrets imported into the UK for the purpose of being rescued and a change in
ownership takes place
8
retained UK law - EUR 576/2013 (as amended) provides an exemption for pet animals which are being moved
into Great Britain for the purpose of participating in competitions, exhibitions or sporting events or in training for
such events
8 of 37Following harmonisation, there has been a significant increase in the number of non-
commercial pet movements into Great Britain, rising from approximately 100,000 in 2011 to
336,446 in 2018 and then 339,254 in 2019910.
The number of dogs, cats and ferrets imported via the commercial route has also significantly
increased over the years.
Although there is a lack of data on imports prior to 2012, in 2018 45,129 dogs, cats and
ferrets were imported into the UK and in 2020, this figure has increased to 73,730, 66,952 of
which were dogs11.
A major concern is the high and increasing volume of low welfare movements of dogs and of
‘smuggled puppies’. Not all ‘Smuggled puppies’ are concealed, the term refers to dogs under
the age of 6 months that are moved into Great Britain and are non-compliant with the entry
requirements under existing legislation.
Anecdotal and supporting evidence12 suggests that there is a significant and concerning
illegal trade in dogs under fifteen weeks old (which is the current legal minimum age for
import), and that these puppies are often under 8 weeks old, which is a major welfare
concern.
Other major issues related to the low welfare import of puppies are concerns about the
facilities that they were bred in, the way in which they have been kept and treated and the
conditions in which they are transported.
These movements represent significant welfare risks to the animals by subjecting them to
long journeys, often in poor conditions, which young puppies in particular often struggle to
deal with both physically and mentally, due to their vulnerability.
9
data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA)
10
it is important to note that a new, more effective system for recording this non-commercial data was
introduced in 2016, which may also have contributed to this increase
11
data from APHA
12
supporting evidence includes evidence submitted by third sector organisations as well as the EFRA select
committee
9 of 37There is also evidence of an emerging market involving the movement of heavily pregnant
dams (female dogs) and high and increasing volumes of cropped and docked13 dogs being
moved into Great Britain.
It is thought that the increasing level of low-welfare trade is motivated by domestic demand
for young dogs and the consequent significant increases in purchase prices of puppies over
recent times. The demand is frequently for puppies from specific, high value breeds or dogs
‘in trend’ and in some cases dogs that are considered a status symbol (such as, cropped and
docked).
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) bill contains a regulation making power. Which, if passed,
will enable the Secretary of State (for England) and ministers in Scotland and Wales to make
regulations to make provision about the movement of pets into Great Britain for the purpose
of promoting their welfare.
This consultation explores potential measures that could be introduced under that enabling
power.
13
Cropping is the removal of all or part of the external flaps of an animal's ear. The procedure can also involve
bracing and taping the remainder of the ears to train them to point upright. Docking is the intentional removal of
part of an animal's tail.
10 of 37Consultation
About you
Please provide with the following details:
Full name:
Email address:
Are you responding as an individual, employee or owner on behalf of an organisation?
Individual ☐
Employee ☐
Owner ☐
Would you like your response to be treated as confidential?
Yes ☐
No ☐
If you answered yes, state clearly below what information you would like to be kept as
confidential and explain your reasons for confidentiality.
Click or tap here to enter text.
11 of 37Which of the following best describes you and/or your organisation? (tick all that apply)
Organisations
Government organisation ☐
Animal welfare group ☐
Veterinary ☐
University ☐
International rescue and rehoming charity ☐
Membership organisation (describe your organisation) ☐
Click or tap here to enter
text.
Business related to pet imports (describe your ☐
business)
Click or tap here to enter
text.
Individuals
Academic ☐
Veterinarian ☐
Pet owner ☐
Owner of an assistance dog ☐
Owner of a dog used in farming ☐
Owner of a sporting dog ☐
Puppy breeder or seller ☐
Approved pet transporter ☐
Member of the public ☐
12 of 37Where do you live?
England ☐
Wales ☐
Scotland ☐
Northern Ireland ☐
Isle of Man ☐
Jersey ☐
Guernsey ☐
Other (please describe) ☐
Click or tap here to enter text.
13 of 37Consultation questions
Increase the minimum age that dogs can be commercially and non-
commercially moved into GREAT BRITAIN from 15 weeks to 6 months
The policy objective for this measure is to prevent the movement of young puppies into Great
Britain whose welfare has been compromised.
The current commercial and non-commercial requirements for the movement of a pet animal
into Great Britain (from the EU or a listed country14) creates an unofficial minimum age
requirement because it is not possible for a pet animal under the age of 15 weeks to be
compliant with the legal requirements for rabies (vaccination at twelve weeks plus a twenty
one day wait period).15
Currently, despite this being illegal under the current rules, puppies arriving into Great Britain
are often 8 weeks old or younger. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) and the
Dogs Trust are also regularly seeing puppies imported that are 4 or 5 weeks of age.
From a welfare perspective, puppies should not be separated from their mothers before they
are eight weeks old, as this is considered to compromise their welfare.
These puppies are being transported well under the recommended age for sale at 8 weeks
old, following early separation from their littermates and mother. There are therefore
considerable concerns over unnecessary stress and poor socialisation.
In addition, evidence16,17,18 from the Dogs Trust suggests that puppies currently being
imported into Great Britain have frequently been subject to breeding practices abroad that
are unacceptable from a welfare perspective, such as living in extremely basic conditions
(such as barren kennels with poor hygiene, limited veterinary care and with no enrichment).
14
The EU has a three tier system for the movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries to Member
States: Part 1 listed country, Part 2 listed country and unlisted. Being a listed country allows for several
exemptions from the requirements for animals travelling from non-EU countries to EU Member states
15
Where the animal comes from an unlisted country, the de facto limit is around 7 months (vaccinated at
12weeks, plus thirty days wait for antibody test, plus 3 months wait period).
16
Dogs Trust Puppy smuggling report 2017 (PDF)
17
The Dogs Trust Puppy Smuggling report 2018 (PDF)
18
The Dogs Trust Puppy Smuggling report 2018 (PDF)
14 of 37Puppies entering Great Britain are also frequently being transported in poor conditions, with
insufficient food and water, no exercise, and no breaks for natural functions19. This is an
offence under existing legislation, but this is not currently acting as a sufficient deterrent.
Evidence suggests that this trade in young and low welfare puppies is increasing, for
example, in 2019, 324 puppies were intercepted and 140 quarantined at the border for non-
compliance with existing legislation. This increased to 843 puppies intercepted, and 543
puppies quarantined in 2020.
The current rules are not effectively preventing the trade in low welfare puppies. We are
therefore proposing to prohibit the movement of a dog which is under 6 months into Great
Britain both commercially and non-commercially. This will prohibit the commercial and non-
commercial movement of all dogs under 6 months into Great Britain.
Given that most people want to buy their puppy when it is younger than 6 months old, this
measure will significantly disrupt the movement of young dogs into Great Britain for sale and
thereby result in significantly fewer low welfare breeding operations supplying the Great
Britain market.
Significant steps have been taken to improve and update the domestic laws 20 on dog
breeding to crack down on breeders who breed dogs within Great Britain purely for financial
gain at the expense of animal welfare. Those breeding dogs within Great Britain as a
business are required to meet high animal welfare standards as part of the Local Authority
licensing system.
We can set, monitor, and change rules and regulations to ensure we maintain the highest
possible breeding standards for animal welfare within Great Britain, however, we are unable
to guarantee or protect the welfare of dogs bred abroad.
The limit of 6 months has also been suggested as it will considerably aid enforcement at the
border. It is extremely challenging to identify if a puppy is under fifteen weeks old, as there
are limited markers that can be used to age young puppies.
This means that it is very difficult for the pet checkers21 to identify puppies being moved that
are under fifteen weeks of age, and it is these young puppies that are driving the trade and
19
read the Dogs Trust undercover reports into puppy smuggling
20
relevant legislation includes - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England)
Regulations 2018 (the 2018 Regulations), Animal Welfare Act 2006, Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021
21
Authorised carriers and pet checkers have the delegated responsibility for conducting pet checks on non-
commercial movements. Each carrier receives training from APHA prior to approval and are also subject to
quality assurance checks.
15 of 37where we have the greatest welfare concerns (as they have likely been removed from their
mothers at a very young age and reared in very poor conditions).
In contrast, at 6 months old, the majority of dogs will have a full set of permanent incisors,
canine and premolar teeth, and can therefore be distinguished far more accurately. Raising
the minimum age to 6 months will ensure that all puppies which are being moved at a young
age and are thus at risk of having been subject to low welfare can be more easily identified.
We are proposing the following exception for those looking to move a dog under the age of
six months under the commercial or non-commercial rules. This exception would allow the
Secretary of State (or Ministers in Scotland and Wales) to permit the landing of a dog that is
under the age of six months if it is compliant with the health and documentary requirements
for entry to GB (or is isolated on arrival until compliant) and if evidence is provided that
justifies that exceptional circumstances apply.
This exception will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State or the relevant Minister in
Scotland and Wales and will be determined on a case by case basis. We intend this
exception to cover exceptional circumstances where owners are unjustly impacted by this
legislation. This could cover situations where an individual is permanently relocating to GB
with their dog or where there is a strong case that the individual should not be separated from
their dog even on a temporary basis. This could also include force majeure, where the need
for the urgent departure of the owner arises, for example, in the event of a sudden natural
disaster, political unrest or other unforeseen circumstance relating to the owner. This would
enable a person who already owns a puppy and needs to take it overseas in an emergency
to return to GB with their puppy.
It is important to note that apart from in exceptional circumstances, this measure will prevent
the movement of all puppies under the age of six months into GB, including those that may
have come from reputable breeders with high welfare standards and rescue dogs. This would
also prevent individuals within GB from travelling and returning to GB with their pet before it
reached six months of age.
The policy team considered alternative options, such as increased presence at the ports, to
deter the movement of low welfare puppies and those under the existing fifteen week age
limit.
However, this would not ease the issues around accurately ageing a dog under fifteen
weeks, nor alleviate the suspicions of prospective owners that their dog is indeed of age.
Similarly, setting a lower minimum age (such as 5 months) would not aid enforcement as
there are not such clear markers at 5 months that can be used for aging.
By raising the minimum age, instances of non-compliance would be far easier to determine at
the point of pet checking or interception, which would have a significant impact in disrupting
the trade and improve the ability to take enforcement action (by making the offence clearer to
establish). We therefore consider this to be a proportionate and necessary approach.
16 of 37Question 1: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should increase the
minimum age that dogs can be moved into Great Britain under the commercial rules from 15
weeks to 6 months? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you
think this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Question 2: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should increase the
minimum age that dogs can be moved into Great Britain under the non-commercial rules
from 15 weeks to 6 months? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you
think this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
17 of 37Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the government’s proposed
exception is appropriate (that the Secretary of State (or Ministers in Scotland and Wales) can
permit the landing of a puppy if it is compliant with the health and documentary requirements
for entry to GB and if evidence is provided that justifies that exceptional circumstances
apply)? .
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you
think this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
18 of 37Ban the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of dogs
with non-exempted mutilations, specifically cropped ears and docked tails
into GREAT BRITAIN
The policy objective of this measure is to prevent those within Great Britain from owning a
cropped or docked dog (with certain exceptions) as the government considers these
practices to be unacceptable from an animal welfare perspective.
It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation22 within Great Britain, but there is
still a demand for cropped and docked dogs within Great Britain23.
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) have stated that ear cropping ‘is an unnecessary,
painful mutilation with no welfare benefit.’ They have also advised that ‘puppies suffer
unnecessary pain as a result of tail docking and are deprived of a vital form of canine
expression in later life’.
These practices involve cutting off part of the ear flap (cropping) or cutting or crushing the
muscle, nerves and bone of the tail in puppies under 5 days old (docking) and this is often
done without anaesthesia or pain relief24 25.
The RSPCA26 state it has seen an increase of around 620% in the number of reports of ear
cropping and cropped ears in England and Wales during the last six years. From 2015 to
2020, the RSCPA had a total of 279 reports of the practice made to their emergency hotline.
Although we believe some reports relate to the illegal cropping of dogs’ ears within Great
Britain, the RSPCA suspect a majority are being bought and imported or they have been sent
abroad to have this procedure done.
22
definition - a non-exempted mutilation refers to the carrying out of a procedure on an animal which involves
interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, other than for the purpose of its medical
treatment or unless carried out in such circumstances as a national authority of the UK has specified by
regulations.
23
relevant legislation - Animal Welfare Act 2006, The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations
2007), Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland)
Act 2006, The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations
2017 (legislation.gov.uk), Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007/1029, Docking of
Working Dogs' Tails (Wales) Regulations 2007/1028
24
British Veterinary Association ear cropping campaign
25
British Veterinary Association tail docking in dogs’ campaign
26
RSPCA report on the high rise in reports about ear cropping
19 of 37APHA has also stated it has seen a noticeable increase in cropped and docked dogs coming
through the border.
Although, we do not have evidence for the overall number of cropped and docked dogs
entering Great Britain, we do have statistics for cases in the past 2 years where a cropped
and/or docked dog has been detained due to being illegally landed.
In 2019, 60 dogs were detained that were cropped and/or docked. This increased to 175
dogs in 2020, an increase of around 190%.
There are also wider concerns that the ability to import a cropped or docked dog is being
used as a cover for these illegal procedures taking place within Great Britain.
There is anecdotal evidence that many owners of dogs with non-exempted mutilations have
obtained the puppy with cropped ears or a docked tail at an age at which the puppy is too
young to have been legally imported, suggesting that the dogs have undergone the
procedure within Great Britain.
We are proposing to prohibit the importation of dogs with non-exempted mutilations into
Great Britain under the commercial import rules and non-commercial pet travel rules.
Fundamentally, this ban would make the purchase or ownership of a dog with a non-
exempted mutilation extremely difficult as they would not be legally accessible.
As a result, we would expect that over time this would reduce the number of individuals
owning a cropped or docked dog, so prevent the trend from increasing within Great Britain
and thereby limit the number of dogs subject to these low welfare mutilations.
This proposal also means our domestic welfare standards are applied to imported dogs as
we do not permit these procedures within our country.
The measure would ban the commercial movement of dogs which have undergone these
procedures (which generates profit), or the non-commercial movement of such dogs (which
promotes the acceptability of these procedures).
We are proposing the following exceptions for those looking to move a dog with a non-
exempted mutilation into Great Britain under the commercial or non-commercial rules:
a. the procedure has been carried out on the dog by a veterinary surgeon or any other
person permitted to carry out that procedure in an emergency for the purpose of saving
the life or relieving the pain of the dog. This could be demonstrated by the provision of
veterinary evidence. This exception would align with our domestic legislation
b. in the case of a dog with a docked tail, the dog is a recognised working dog (such as a
dog which is likely to be used for enforcement, activities of Her Majesty's armed forces,
emergency rescue, lawful pest control, or the lawful shooting of animals and is one of the
following types: hunt point retrieve breeds of any type or combination of types, spaniels
of any type or combination of types, terriers of any type or combination of types). We will
need to consider what evidence will be required to demonstrate that a dog is a
20 of 37recognised working dog. This could be an owner declaration or evidence that the dog is
used for the activities outlined above.
c. The dog is an assistance dog (as defined under section 173 (1) of the Equality Act
2010)27. Users of assistance dogs do not have the option to travel without their dog and
so this exception would ensure that users of assistance dogs, where the dog had been
subjected to a non-exempted mutilation, could continue to travel freely.
d. The Secretary of State (or ministers in Scotland and Wales) can permit the landing of a
dog with a non-exempted mutilation if it is compliant with the health and documentary
requirements for entry to Great Britain (or is isolated on arrival until compliant) and if
evidence is provided that justifies that exceptional circumstances apply.
This exception will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State or the relevant Minister in
Scotland and Wales and will be determined on a case by case basis. We intend this
exception to cover exceptional circumstances where owners are unjustly impacted by this
legislation.
This could cover situations where an individual is permanently relocating to Great Britain
with their dog or where there is a strong case that the individual should not be separated
from their dog even on a temporary basis. This could also include force majeure, where
the need for the urgent departure of the owner arises, for example, in the event of a
sudden natural disaster, political unrest or other unforeseen circumstance relating to the
owner.
This would enable a person who already owns a cropped or docked dog and needs to
take their dog overseas in an emergency to return to Great Britain with their dog.
e. The procedure was carried out before the prohibition comes into force. This could be
demonstrated by the provision of veterinary evidence, including the date on which the
procedure was carried out. This would mean that any person that currently owns a dog
with a non-exempted mutilation would continue to be able to travel with their pet into GB.
It is important to note that this proposal would cover rescue dogs and prevent individuals with
dogs which had been subjected to non-exempted mutilations after this legislation comes into
force from routinely travelling into Great Britain with their dogs. We consider this to be a
proportionate and necessary approach to tackling the trade.
27
‘Assistance dog’ means:
(a) a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person
(b) a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person
(c) a dog which has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability
that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects the person's mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or
ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects
(d) a dog of a prescribed category which has been trained to assist a disabled person who has a
disability (other than one falling within paragraph (c)) of a prescribed kind
21 of 37The policy team considered alternative options and exceptions, such as allowing non-
commercial movements but prohibiting the commercial import of cropped or docked dogs into
Great Britain.
However, we believe this would create a significant loophole within the legislation and
unscrupulous traders could misuse the pet travel rules to bring in cropped and docked dogs
for sale.
The policy team also considered whether it would be appropriate to instead ban the purchase
of a dog with a non-exempted mutilation within Great Britain. This would allow for their non-
commercial movement into Great Britain but prevent the sale of such an animal.
We discounted this option because it would not prevent the existing practice of pre-
purchased dogs where funds are transferred before the dog begins its journey to Great
Britain, or buyers travelling out to collect the dog where the ‘purchase’ takes place outside of
Great Britain.
Question 4: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should introduce a
ban on the commercial movements of dogs with non-exempted mutilations into Great Britain?
(tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
22 of 37Question 5: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should introduce a
ban on the non-commercial movement of dogs with non-exempted mutilations into Great
Britain?
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Government’s proposed exceptions
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the government’s proposed exceptions are
appropriate:
Question 6: where the prohibited procedure has been carried out on the dog by a veterinary
surgeon or any other person permitted to carry out that procedure in an emergency for the
purpose of saving the life or relieving the pain of the dog? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
23 of 37Question 7: in the case of tail docking, the mutilation was permitted as the dog is a
recognised working dog? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Question 8: the dog is an assistance dog (as defined under section 173 (1) of the Equality
Act 2010)? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Question 9: Secretary of State (or ministers in Scotland and Wales) can permit the landing of
a dog with a non-exempted mutilation if it is compliant with the health and documentary
requirements for entry to Great Britain and if evidence is provided that justifies that
exceptional circumstances apply? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
24 of 37Strongly disagree ☐
Question 10: the procedure was carried out before the prohibition comes into force?
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, how you think these
exceptions could be demonstrated, what factors you think the Secretary of State (or minister
in Scotland and Wales) should consider when permitting a landing, and describe any
additional exceptions that you think should be included.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Ban the commercial and non-commercial movements into Great Britain of
pregnant dogs (dams) which are more than 42 days pregnant
The purpose of this proposal is to prevent the current and emerging practice of moving
heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain which is a welfare concern.
The existing rules for commercial importation require that a pregnant dam cannot be
transported in her final 10% of gestation28.
This equates to the final week of pregnancy for a dog, or after 56 days, as the normal
average gestation period is 63 days. This limit is currently not sufficient to tackle the
emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dams, because it is very difficult to enforce.
Detecting the stage of pregnancy accurately is extremely challenging in the later stages, as
there are no reliable markers in the final 10%. This means that it can be very difficult for an
28
retained UK law - EUR 1/2005 (as amended) Annex I, Article 2(c): concerns the commercial movement of
pregnant animals, and states that they cannot be transported in the final 10% of the gestation.
25 of 37independent veterinarian to demonstrate that a dam is in the final 10% of pregnancy and
should therefore not be moved.
The emerging trend in the movement of heavily pregnant dams into Great Britain is believed
to be driven by the market for young puppies. From January 2020 to May 2021, 31 heavily
pregnant dams were detained.
These pregnant dams have often been kept and bred in low welfare facilities before being
transported across Europe. Regular investigations by the Dogs Trust have highlighted the
extremely poor conditions in the breeding facilities in continental Europe where many of
these dogs are being sourced29.
In addition, APHA portal teams report that these dams often display serious behavioural
issues, indicating that they have been subjected to very poor treatment.
We have anecdotal evidence, following our engagement with various third sector
organisations and other government departments, that the movement of pregnant dams is
currently being exploited for financial gain by unscrupulous traders, who often move the
same animals back and forth from Eastern Europe.
We believe these animals are brought to Great Britain to give birth and then transported back
to breed again in basic, much cheaper, low welfare conditions before returning again in the
late stages of pregnancy.
These journeys are often very long and undertaken in poor transport conditions, representing
significant welfare risks to the animals.
We are proposing a ban on the commercial and non-commercial movement of dams that are
more than 42 days pregnant (within the final 33.3% of gestation or final trimester). At 42
days, there are more reliable markers (the kidneys have developed in the foetus which can
be detected by scanning) and so pregnant dams can be reliably identified (by a veterinarian)
via a scan once they have passed this stage.
Lowering the gestation limit will also mean that pet checkers will have greater confidence in
refusing travel to dams that appear pregnant. Dams that are visibly pregnant are highly likely
to be beyond 42 days pregnant, but they may not be within the last 10%.
By improving enforcement, lowering the gestation limit will help to prevent the transport of
dams that are in the late stages of pregnancy, thereby protecting their welfare.
In addition, extending this window will mean that where heavily pregnant dams are imported,
they can be more easily identified and seized, and then cared for appropriately. This will
29
Dogs Trust puppy smuggling report (PDF)
26 of 37ensure their welfare by cutting their journey short and reducing their stress levels before the
birth and ensuring that we prevent the trade in these dams from facilities with very poor
welfare.
Finally, by increasing the window, the trade in pregnant dams will become considerably less
lucrative (by increasing the time in which they would need to be held in Great Britain). This
will act as an additional deterrent to this trade.
The policy team considered alternative options, such as increased enforcement (such as
presence at the ports), to deter the movement of heavily pregnant dams. However, increased
enforcement would not ease the issues around accurately determining the stage of
pregnancy.
Similarly, setting a different gestation limit (for example, banning the movement of dams at
any stage of pregnancy) would not aid enforcement as there are not clear markers that can
be used in the early or very late stages of pregnancy.
We do not currently have any evidence to suggest that these issues also apply to the
transport of heavily pregnant dams within Great Britain (or that heavily pregnant dams are
frequently moved domestically). We are currently not proposing to apply this measure to
domestic movements.
Question 11: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should introduce a
ban on the commercial movement into Great Britain of dogs, which are more than 42 days
pregnant? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
27 of 37Question 12: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should introduce a
ban on the non-commercial movement into Great Britain of dogs, which are more than 42
days pregnant? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Question 13: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should introduce a
ban on the commercial movement within Great Britain (domestic movements) of dogs which
are more than 42 days pregnant? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
28 of 37Click or tap here to enter text.
Question 14: Do you think there should be exceptions set out under this proposal? If so,
describe the exception and any comments or evidence to support your answer.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Enforcement
The proposed measures set out in this consultation document would be enforced in a similar
way to the existing pet travel and commercial import rules.
We already operate one of the most rigorous and robust pet travel checking regimes in
Europe. All non-commercial dogs, cats and ferrets entering Great Britain on approved routes
(every route other than Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) under the Pet Travel rules
undergo 100% documentary and identity checks.
APHA works collaboratively with Border Force and other partners at ports, airports and
inland, sharing intelligence to enforce the Pet Travel Scheme, disrupt illegal imports and
seize non-compliant animals.
Local authorities are the enforcement and prosecuting bodies for most offences relating to
the illegal importation of puppies and dogs. They also deal with cases identified inland for
example, when a vet becomes aware of a puppy that has been imported below the legal age.
Currently, APHA carry out post import checks at destination on commercial pets from the EU
on a risk-based approach. From late 2022, these checks will take place at the Border Control
Posts (BCPs).
Commercial consignments of pets entering the UK from a non-EU country must currently
enter via a BCP where they all undergo documentary, identity, and veterinary checks prior to
entry.
Any animal found to be non-compliant with the pet travel health requirements may be refused
entry, returned to its country or territory of dispatch, detained until compliant, or, as a last
resort destroyed.
We are proposing that similar enforcement powers in relation to non-compliant animals will
apply to the new measures proposed in this consultation.
Therefore, where non-compliant animals are intercepted at the border, the relevant authority
(APHA and/or the local authorities) will have the power to re-export the animal, detain them
until compliant, or euthanise them, in all cases at the expense of the owner.
29 of 37Currently, if an animal is illegally landed in Great Britain and if the owner or person
responsible for the animal is known, that person is normally required to organise the
detention of the animal.
We are proposing to amend this process to enable the relevant authority to arrange for this
detention of the animal in all cases, including where the owner is present. The owner or
person responsible for the animal would still be required to pay the detention fees.
This power would not be used in all cases, and in most instances, we would expect the
owner to arrange for the detention of their pet, but this would provide the relevant authority
with the power to act where necessary.
The relevant authority would be required to write to the owner (or their representative) to
inform them of the actions needed to be taken to reach compliance (for the return of their pet)
and the timeline for these actions.
In practice, this will mean that:
• animals that do not meet the health requirements will need to be quarantined
until compliant (as happens now)
• where appropriate, heavily pregnant dogs would be detained with their puppies
for 2 weeks after they had whelped the puppies, to ensure that their welfare
would not be compromised by further movement and to minimise the risk of
rejection due to the stress of traveling soon after birth (as happens now).
• dogs that are under 6 months old (but are compliant with the health
requirements and therefore not required to be quarantined) could be re-
exported at the owner’s expense30
• where the owner refuses to re-export them, these animals could be detained
until they become compliant (such as reaching 6 months of age), if the owner
agrees to pay the boarding cost for the entire detention period.
• If the owner refuses to arrange for the animals to be re-exported or detained,
they would be rehomed following the 7 day detention period outlined below
• dogs that have been cropped and docked (but are compliant with the health
requirements and therefore not required to be quarantined) could be re-
exported at the owner’s expense.
• Where the owner refuses, these animals could be detained until the owner
complies and re-exports them (or if they refuse to comply, the animals would be
rehomed in Great Britain following the detention period outlined below)
30
• Where an owner or importer is required to re-export the animal following a non-compliance, The relevant
authority will ensure that safeguards are in place, including informing the competent authority in the country
where the animal is being sent (which is not necessarily where they originated). If necessary, to protect their
welfare, the animals will be detained until arrangements can be made for them to be safely re-exported.
30 of 37In practice, we know that this will lead to non-compliant animals being abandoned when they
are intercepted and subsequently seized on entering the UK.
We are proposing to outline in the legislation a process for transferring ownership of these
animals to the relevant authority. This will ensure that these abandoned animals can be
legally rehomed to suitable homes.
We are proposing to set out a 7 day detention period, this would be in line with the 7 day
detention period that already exists in relation to stray dogs (under the Environmental
Protection act 1990, which allows a local authority to re-home or destroy a stray dog, which:
a) has been detained for 7 clear days after it has been seized if the owner has not
been identified or
b) has been detained for 7 clear days after a notice has been served on the owner
and the owner has not claimed the dog and paid the detention fees
Following the seizure and detention of an animal, the animal would be transferred to a
quarantine or boarding facility and the relevant authority would make reasonable attempts to
identify and contact the owner.
This could involve seeking information from the transporter or the vet that signed the
paperwork to try to identify the owner, and then making repeated attempts to contact the
owner.
The owner would then be given seven days in which to contact the relevant authority and
either pay the outstanding detention fees and enter into a contract with a boarding facility for
the remaining detention period or to re-export the dog.
If the owner fails to complete these actions, or the owner could not be identified or contacted
by the eighth day of seizure, the animal would be considered abandoned and ownership of
the animals would pass to the relevant authority. The relevant authority would work with
welfare charities to ensure that these animals were rehomed to suitable homes.
This 7 day detention period would apply to all pets (dogs, cats and ferrets) seized for non-
compliance with existing animal health and documentary requirements as well as the new
animal welfare requirements which we are proposing to introduce using the powers in the
Welfare of Animals (Kept Animals) bill. We would set out a suitable appeals process within
the legislation.
31 of 37Question 15: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposal to
introduce a seizure power that will allow the relevant authority to arrange for the detention of
non-compliant animals in all cases, including where the owner is present? (tick one option
only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Question 16: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposal to set
out a 7 day detention period in law? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
32 of 37Click or tap here to enter text.
Penalties
Currently, the maximum penalty for illegally landing a dog is 12 months in prison or an
unlimited fine (following a successful prosecution).
We are proposing to create new criminal offences for illegally landing a dog under the age of
6 months, a dog that has been subjected to a non-exempted mutilation or a dog which is
more than 42 days pregnant.
Under the Welfare of Animals (Kept Animals) bill, we are able to set a maximum penalty for
illegally importing a pet at 5 years in prison (on conviction on indictment) or an unlimited fine.
This could cover the criminal offences introduced under the new legislation as well as those
criminal offences that already exist in relation to the import of pets.
The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) act 2021 realises the government’s manifesto commitment
to increase the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty.
This strengthened penalty sends a clear message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated and
will enable our courts to take a firmer approach to cases such as dog fighting, illegal cropping
of dog’s ears, abuse of puppies and kittens, or gross neglect of farm animals.
We are seeking views on whether it is appropriate to send an equally strong message that
importing low welfare pets into Great Britain is not acceptable by setting the maximum
penalty for the offence of illegally importing a pet in line with these animal cruelty offences.
This would also be in line with the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences available
under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) act 2006.
It may aid enforcement if the APHA border team or Local Authorities (LAs) were able to issue
fixed or variable monetary penalties (fines) where they intercept an animal that has been
illegally moved to Great Britain.
These monetary penalties would be civil sanctions and so would not be associated with a
criminal offence but could be issued by APHA or the Local Authorities as an alternative to a
criminal prosecution. In order for this to be an effective deterrent against what is a highly
lucrative trade, these fines might need to be significant (for example, up to five thousand
pounds).
These fixed monetary penalties could be used for less serious cases (for example, involving
fewer animals) or for first time offences, where a prosecution may not be a proportionate
response.
33 of 37Variable monetary penalties are penalties where the enforcement authority (such as APHA or
LAs) decide the amount to impose on a case by case basis, dependent on the gravity of the
breach.
Restrictions on the amount that can be imposed and the factors that should be considered in
deciding this amount can be set out in the legislation. These variable penalties could be
imposed for significant breaches or for repeated breaches. We would need to consider what
an appropriate fine might be.
Civil monetary penalties have a lower resource burden on the authorities than criminal
prosecutions and so they can be a useful enforcement tool, particularly in less serious cases.
Prosecutions and criminal offences can then be reserved for the most serious cases.
It is possible that monetary penalties may be regarded as part of the cost of doing business.
Where the trade is highly lucrative, such as the illegal puppy trade, this can severely limit the
impact of this as an enforcement approach.
However, if the fine is a significant amount, we feel that civil monetary penalties could be a
valuable enforcement tool and an effective deterrent. A suitable appeal process would be set
out in the legislation.
Question 17: to what extent do you agree or disagree that a maximum penalty for illegally
landing a dog of 5 years in prison or an unlimited fine is appropriate? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Question 18: to what extent do you agree or disagree that monetary penalties would be a
useful enforcement tool under this legislation? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
34 of 37Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you
think this is a proportionate approach, your views on the appropriate value of these penalties
and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Cats
Currently, there is limited evidence that there is a significant illegal trade in cats or significant
numbers of low welfare movements. Overall, the number of movements of cats into Great
Britain is much lower than for dogs.
In 2020, only 6,768 cats were commercially imported into the UK. In comparison, within the
same year, 66,952 dogs were commercially imported. In 2019 31,890 pet cats were moved
non-commercially compared to 307,263 pet dogs into Great Britain.
We are also not seeing the same issues with young kittens and pregnant cats being
imported. In 2020, only 17 kittens (under 15 weeks) and 0 pregnant cats were seized and
detained.
We are not therefore proposing to change the minimum age of cats imported or non-
commercially moved. It will therefore remain at 15 weeks (from the EU or a listed country).
We are also not proposing to change the gestation limit on the importation and non-
commercial movement of heavily pregnant cats. It will remain illegal to commercially import a
cat that is in its final 10% of pregnancy31.
31
retained UK law - EUR 1/2005 (as amended) Annex I, Article 2(c): concerns the commercial movement of
pregnant animals, and states that they cannot be transported in the final 10% of the gestation.
35 of 37Question 19: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposal to
retain existing requirements in relation to the commercial import and non-commercial
movement of cats? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
Disagree ☐
Strongly disagree ☐
Please provide any comments or evidence to support your answer, including whether you think
this is a proportionate approach and outlining any alternative solutions or unintended
consequences.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Ferrets
Currently, there is no evidence that there is a significant illegal trade in ferrets or significant
numbers of low welfare movements. Overall, the movement of ferrets into Great Britain is
extremely low. In 2020, only 10 ferrets were moved commercially into the UK and 45 non-
commercially into Great Britain.
We are not therefore proposing to increase the minimum age of ferrets imported or non-
commercially moved to 6 months.
We are also not proposing to change the gestation limit on the importation and non-
commercial movement of heavily pregnant ferrets. It will remain illegal to import a ferret that
is in its final 10% of pregnancy.
Question 20: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposal to
retain existing requirements in relation to the commercial import and non-commercial
movement of ferrets? (tick one option only)
Strongly agree ☐
Agree ☐
Neither Agree nor disagree ☐
36 of 37You can also read
